I just wish “all options were on the table” concerning BHO’s future.

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Fed Judge rules against BHO 6 month moratorium on oil drilling!

YOU’RE FIRED GENERAL.

THAT IS ALL.

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer gets bitch -slapped by Col. Jack Jacobs on McChrystal’s comments:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/06/22/col-jack-jacobs-most-military-will-say-mcchrystal-was-right

Oh no how will Contessa ever go on? How will the world recover?

Contessa is a lib shill like you, paul!

Where’s moveon.org, where’s media matters, where’s Soros.. shouldn’t they be backing this General about an “unjust”, “unwinable” war. The left, or as I like to call them… “useful idiots”… seem strangely quiet on this.

Nice retort, especially coming from someone who continuously makes shamelessly partisan comments that may or may not relate to the topic. If I am a lib shill I guess that makes you a conserv shill.

Bobomatic says:
June 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Where’s moveon.org, where’s media matters, where’s Soros.. shouldn’t they be backing this General about an “unjust”, “unwinable” war. The left, or as I like to call them… “useful idiots”… seem strangely quiet on this.”

The libs should be shouting, “Freedom of Speech” like they did with Helen Thomas.

paulmdoro says:
June 22, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Nice retort, especially coming from someone who continuously makes shamelessly partisan comments that may or may not relate to the topic. If I am a lib shill I guess that makes you a conserv shill.”

Oh, paul, you are generalizing again!

I do believe that when the group of retired generals publicly condemned the Bush administration for its policies and procedures in Iraq, the left was supportive. Is the issue that those generals were retired while McChrystal is currently serving?

Paul,
As always, the issue is the double standard of the media. As I stated earlier, I don’t think McChrystal should’ve done it, but that doesn’t negate the media bias issue. And since this site is dedicated to the media, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss their bias. Don’t you?

Well sure discussing media bias is reasonable. Is that the case here, or, like I said, is there a difference between retired generals speaking out publicly and someone currently serving doing it? Did a serving general ever publicly bash the Bush administration?

Perhaps Bush’s general’s didn’t have an issue with the way he was handling the war.

Considering the issues the retired generals had it is certainly possible that at some point a serving general had a problem with Bush’s handling of the war. It would appear that there is a difference between a retired and serving general being publicly critical, meaning there isn’t a double standard here.

Considering the issues the retired generals had it is certainly possible that at some point a serving general had a problem with Bush’s handling of the war.

Or perhaps they weren’t privy to all of the info that the acting generals were.

ps Paul. You are doing a great job defending the left wing media. Colby and the rest are VERY lucky to have you!

oh, snap!

Yes, President Bush, we miss you very much!

If a general had criticized President Bush’s military strategy, he would have been a hero in the media. If a general criticizes President’s Obama’s military strategy he is attacked and threatened with demotion or dismissal.

I can’t wait to hear the commentators on MSNBC claim that General McChrystal must be a racist, etc. etc.

Of course, the one thing you won’t hear in the mainstream media is any discussion of whether the General might be correct in his assessment. The Left is immune to discussing issues of substance, and instead focus here (as always) on properly “framing” the “perception” of the “issues.” Just like they have been framing the perception of the issue in the Gulf that is spouting out oil at an alarming rate….

Can we at least get the WH to go on record and say this is racism?

Thanks for the broad generalizations felix. Those don’t really add much to the discussion.

Michelle, if seemed like we were having a civil discussion, and then you have to throw in “You are doing a great job defending the left wing media. Colby and the rest are VERY lucky to have you!”

It’s unfortunate that we can’t just continue to have a good back and forth. You just have to take a cheap shot. What do you really gain in doing so? It’s also funny how if someone says anything you remotely disagree with they are automatically “a defender of the left wind media.” What’s wrong with asking questions, seeking more information, and playing devil’s advocate? Doing so doesn’t mean someone is a non-thinking partisan tool.

JohnSimpson says:
June 22, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Oh, paul, you are generalizing again!

paulmdoro says:
June 22, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Thanks for the broad generalizations felix.”

What did I tell ya? This shills favorite tactic is to tell everyone that they are generalizing and then Paul goes on to do just that!

Keep on playing broken record.

Paul, it’s you that keeps saying there isn’t a double standard. I’m just complimenting you on your water carrying abilities. You seem to be alone today, so you deserve some credit.

That’s a generalization, paul!

I think I raised valid questions Michelle, so let’s recap. Did any active generals publicly criticize Bush and his policies? You answered that one. Is there a difference between a retired general and a serving general being publicly critical?

How are those questions akin to carrying water?

During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article.

The most prominent active duty general to earn the media’s affection was Gen. Eric Shinseki, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs (to the media’s delight). He insisted in 2003 that, contrary to Defense Department policy as iterated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the United States would need to send “hundreds of thousands” of troops to Iraq during the initial invasion. The media ate it up.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Granted, Shinseki made his comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee, a more appropriate setting than in the pages of a magazine. But the fact remains that Shinseki was expressing an opinion–one that undermined administration policy–and the media seized on his statement not as a commentary on the chain of command, but rather as criticism of the administration’s war effort.

“Top generals, including Eric Shinseki,” wrote the Boston Globe in 2004, “fault Pentagon leadership for not heeding their advice to deploy more ground forces before the invasion or to prepare adequately for the aftermath.”

After Shinseki’s repudiation of official military policy prompted rebukes from Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the New York Times dubbed those rebukes “unusual” and went on to bemoan the fact that Shinseki “has not had more influence on the war planning and the allocation of forces,” in the words of another Army general.

The Times also devoted a piece to active duty personnel’s criticisms of Rumsfeld and the Iraqi war effort generally. The article read,

Long-simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it…

One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. “He wanted to fight this war on the cheap,” the colonel said. “He got what he wanted.”…

Underlying the strains between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army, which began at the beginning of Mr. Rumsfeld’s tenure, are questions that challenge not only the Rumsfeld design for this war but also his broader approach to transforming the military.

Instead of going on to examine the apparent problems with a military chain of command in which policymakers are criticized, the Times, the Globe, and many other media outlets used critiques from officers both named and anonymous to question the effectiveness and wisdom of American military policy.

McChrystal’s statements could spur some discussion on whether President Obama is really up to the task in Afghanistan–the general is certainly is not the first to suggest it. Yet the media focus has been almost entirely trained on the general himself and on the supposed danger of a dysfunctional chain of command and a general who questions the president’s orders.

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter today explained, in the words of his headline, “Why Military Code Demands McChrystal’s Resignation.”

“The most important issue at hand in the furor over Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s acerbic comments in Rolling Stone,” wrote Alter, “is the central one in a democracy: civilian control over the military.” Got it? The question is not whether McChrystal’s critiques of the administration could shine some light on an ineffective war effort or misguided military policies.

No, unlike military criticism of Bush war policy, McChrystal’s comments spur discussion of the intricacies of a civilian-controlled military, not the specific policies employed by the civilian government and their consequences on the battlefield.

Time’s Joe Klein applauded Mike Huckabee in 2007 for saying he “would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice.” But now Klein is far more concerned with the “military tradition and practice” violated by generals who speak out against their commanders than he is with the ongoing war effort.

McChrystal was of course out of line. But media liberals who are only distraught at potential insubordination when the subordinate does not aid their political goals in speaking out are commentators whose opinions must be taken with a few grains of salt.

—Lachlan Markay is an associate with Dialog New Media. Make sure to follow him on Twitte

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/06/22/flashback-media-promoted-military-criticism-president-bush#ixzz0rbqZQHsC

Is there a difference between a retired general and a serving general being publicly critical?

Yes I think there is a difference, but like I said, perhaps the acting generals thought Bush was doing a good job.

My question to you is, can you honestly say that the media covers Bush and Obama the same way? You can’t honestly think that. Even now, if anyone that worked with Bush or is related to him says anything contradictory to him, it’s front page news.

Looks like you went ahead and answered for me.

Then unless you say otherwise, I’ll assume you are saying I’m correct. Please let me know if that isn’t the case.

I don’t think media bias is something you and I will ever agree on.

Paul, just so I have your position, are you saying there is NOT double standard in the way Bush and Obama are covered?

I am saying that you and I do not see eye-to-eye on the subject of media bias.

Thanks for clarifying Paul. We will have to agree to disagree then. But please don’t get angry if we continue to point out daily cases of bias.

I won’t get angry. I talk about media bias with people all the time. It’s a subject I enjoy, and like you said before, this is an ideal place to discuss it.

If a general had criticized President Bush’s military strategy, …..

See media reports on General Schinziski (sp) and how he was praised by the media, who today claims that what Stanley did is unheard of. Too damn funny.

Genearl’s who openly criticized Bush were praised by the same media who today are shocked, shocked I say, about Stanley’s comments.

Shep is guilty of this as well, and right now he is the one claiming this has never happened before. Poor Shep.

How did the media praise the generals who openly criticized Bush? By reporting it in the first place or did they actually actively and deliberately praise the generals?

Paul, this ones for you.

Flashback: Media Promoted Military Criticism of President Bush

No general should criticize his or her commander, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal is no exception. But the mainstream media is primarily concerned with the political fallout of McChrystal’s apparent insubordination as revealed by a piece in Rolling Stone. They are not concerned with whether his critiques are accurate, in stark contrast to other military officers’ critiques of war policy under the Bush administration.

During Bush’s tenure, active duty generals that spoke out against administration policy were portrayed as courageous whistleblowers. Retired generals were treated as ever-wise sages of military policy. None were scrutinized as McChrystal, pictured right, has been in the hours since Rolling Stone released its article.

The most prominent active duty general to earn the media’s affection was Gen. Eric Shinseki, current Secretary of Veterans Affairs (to the media’s delight). He insisted in 2003 that, contrary to Defense Department policy as iterated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the United States would need to send “hundreds of thousands” of troops to Iraq during the initial invasion. The media ate it up.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/06/22/flashback-media-promoted-military-criticism-president-bush#ixzz0rcRirzDg

“MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer gets bitch -slapped by Col. Jack Jacobs on McChrystal’s comments:”

I saw this interview as it aired and I read the NewsBusters’ account of the incident. Neither would come anywhere near your assertion that she got “bitch slapped”. He didn’t correct her, not even close. That’s what a “bitch slap” is all about…